OSA Dirty Tricks - response to recent cyberattacks

This is my response video to the news today of Jeffrey Augustine and Karen Delacarriere about a cyber attack being executed on Karen's YouTube Surviving Scientology channel. I think it's important that the truth be made known about OSA and action be taken to get YouTube's management to adjust their policies so the innocent are protected on this as well as the guilty punished. Rinder's blog was also DoS attacked over the weekend, nothing new I know but just another instance of this kind of thing. And there have been other things OSA has been doing lately which I can't go into detail about here but which are even more underhanded.

ESMB-ers may not know that the Bunker's hilarious shooper Observer has had her Flickr account cancelled after a complaint about her 'Ron Series'; that she was inappropriately using copyrighted material. Load of old bollocks. These are now being copied to other locations, but there does seem to be something afoot at the moment.

Outrageous stuff. I remember it well from the Tom Cruise official fansite I and a few others were participating in and finally got it acting like a critic site. Several times when two critics became moderators, we got spammed to hell by ah.... some body - a body of OSA is the best (obvious) guess - in our humble opinions. We gave up in the end as a tiny critic site, but we were happy to leave our mark for posterity - that which wasn't deleted still exists.

This thing with Karen and Jeff is a whole huge level of 'action' aimed at folks who are highly visible and wonderfully effective and, like Tory, successful at putting the necessary information out there in a big way. Lots of gratitude to them always and supporting them all the way. You will win this next round of OSA dirty tactics. It's just a matter of time.

Well db, you've got Mr Heinlein, Mrs Heinlein, L Ron Hubbard, and Mr Xenu in bed together, facing the camera. As they were then. You be the judge.

This is my response video to the news today of Jeffrey Augustine and Karen Delacarriere about a cyber attack being executed on Karen's YouTube Surviving Scientology channel. I think it's important that the truth be made known about OSA and action be taken to get YouTube's management to adjust their policies so the innocent are protected on this as well as the guilty punished. Rinder's blog was also DoS attacked over the weekend, nothing new I know but just another instance of this kind of thing. And there have been other things OSA has been doing lately which I can't go into detail about here but which are even more underhanded.

Wait, wait! I need more help with the YouTube thing. (I already posted this on the Karen YouTube thread, but maybe this particular horror has shifted over to here.)

I saw the Chris Shelton blog piece today and did as he instructed...sent an e-mail to security@youtube.com. I immediately (as you point out) got an automated response saying that I should choose from many options and so on. I got about three levels into it and couldn't find an actual place to make my complaint to YouTube! I chose harassment and the choices that came AFTER that seemed to lead off into eternity.

Could someone be more specific for my pore ol' brain about how to file this complaint to YouTube? I mean FOLLOWING the receipt of the automated response letter: what do you then choose? And what after that? And at what point do you arrive from whence you can actually make the complaint?

I get the funny feeling that YouTube/Google might be trying to DISCOURAGE users from complaining about things. Gosh, why would that be? (Actually, given the, shall we say, "Mixed Bag" of users, I can see why they might want to make it hard to communicate with them.) But somehow it has been made so opaque that I can't get to a place where I can actually file my very much-needed complaint on behalf of the outrages that are being directed at Karen and Jeffrey.

ESMB-ers may not know that the Bunker's hilarious shooper Observer has had her Flickr account cancelled after a complaint about her 'Ron Series'; that she was inappropriately using copyrighted material. Load of old bollocks. These are now being copied to other locations, but there does seem to be something afoot at the moment.

This is a very good question Purple! I did a quick Google search and found this web page written for the law layman. Here is an excerpt.

Since copyright law prohibits the substantial use of a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright owner, and because such permission is highly unlikely when the use is to create a parody, it may be necessary for the parodist to rely on the fair-use defense to forestall any liability for copyright infringement. However, the fair-use defense if successful will only be successful when the newly created work that purports itself to be parody is a valid parody.

Another line of defense that may be available for parodists are the free speech principles incorporated in the First Amendment. Historically courts have been sensitive to the interaction between parody as a means of entertainment and as a form of social commentary and criticism and First Amendment values. The public interest in such expression could be construed as outweighing the rights of the copyright owner. Entertainers have successfully invoked free speech principles to present wide-ranging artistic expression. However, when commercial gain appears to be the primary motive such as in movies, books, songs, plays and visual art the parodist's work and its defense under the First Amendment and fair use doctrine has frequently resulted in a number of court decisions that are seemingly irreconcilable.

Wait, wait! I need more help with the YouTube thing. (I already posted this on the Karen YouTube thread, but maybe this particular horror has shifted over to here.)

I saw the Chris Shelton blog piece today and did as he instructed...sent an e-mail to security@youtube.com. I immediately (as you point out) got an automated response saying that I should choose from many options and so on. I got about three levels into it and couldn't find an actual place to make my complaint to YouTube! I chose harassment and the choices that came AFTER that seemed to lead off into eternity.

Could someone be more specific for my pore ol' brain about how to file this complaint to YouTube? I mean FOLLOWING the receipt of the automated response letter: what do you then choose? And what after that? And at what point do you arrive from whence you can actually make the complaint?

I get the funny feeling that YouTube/Google might be trying to DISCOURAGE users from complaining about things. Gosh, why would that be? (Actually, given the, shall we say, "Mixed Bag" of users, I can see why they might want to make it hard to communicate with them.) But somehow it has been made so opaque that I can't get to a place where I can actually file my very much-needed complaint on behalf of the outrages that are being directed at Karen and Jeffrey.

HALP!

Click to expand...

I also attempted (unsuccessfully) to send an email to YouTube. There really is no correct category to choose to enable one to do this. (not that I've found so far).

An example of this is how the Church went for IRS tax exemption. Office of Special Affairs carefully studying the book on 501C3s, all the guidelines of what it would need to get religious EXEMPTION, then it implemented those factors.

So suddenly there were "Church" services and symbolic crosses everywhere on Scientology Inc real estate. One of the The IRS guidelines was a Church has a MORAL/ETHICAL code, (Christians have the 10 commandments etc.) hence, in the 80s, some 33 years after Dianetics *SUDDENLY* THE WAY TO HAPPINESS moral code was written. Pure IRS fulfilment on what makes a *CHURCH*. There are a lot more examples.

+++++++++++++++++++++ When the Criminal Cult wants to hit a target it uses laws and policy in REVERSE. So someone at OSA INT studied that fake "VIEWS" could cause trouble at YouTUBE and so they had people in Khazigstan, United Arab Emirates,Estonia and Rumania, hit certain of my videos. ( In Video Manager you can see each country, each head count) There is no Scientology in these countries and no one from them ever visited previous, *Suddenly* over night these countries were flooding my site with 24 second "views."

My Lawyer Ray Jeffrey immediately wrote to General Counsel of Google and any danger was immediately thwarted. Nice communication cycle.
The Church will commit any criminal act on a target. It's *ECCLESIASTICAL !​

A few months ago Scientology whistle blower Karen de la Carriere had trouble on her YouTube channel with someone suddenly hacking her account with fake views all coming from places that have no interest in Scientology.

It appears the cult hired a hacker to massively boost some of the view counts of her videos in an attempt to make it look like she was cheating. Perhaps then they could get her account in trouble with YouTube.

Well, once again the cult proves it always tries to charge other people with what it does. Look how it pathetically faked the views on it’s video promoting WISE (world institute of Sci enterprises).

The video is a toothless promo that is all text and has no people in it. Or anything else. Nobody would sit through it. But look at this screen grab of it’s YouTube view count that the cult stupidly allowed to be made public by YouTube.

An example of this is how the Church went for IRS tax exemption. Office of Special Affairs carefully studying the book on 501C3s, all the guidelines of what it would need to get religious EXEMPTION, then it implemented those factors.

So suddenly there were "Church" services and symbolic crosses everywhere on Scientology Inc real estate. One of the The IRS guidelines was a Church has a MORAL/ETHICAL code, (Christians have the 10 commandments etc.) hence, in the 80s, some 33 years after Dianetics *SUDDENLY* THE WAY TO HAPPINESS moral code was written. Pure IRS fulfilment on what makes a *CHURCH*. There are a lot more examples.

+++++++++++++++++++++ When the Criminal Cult wants to hit a target it uses laws and policy in REVERSE. So someone at OSA INT studied that fake "VIEWS" could cause trouble at YouTUBE and so they had people in Khazigstan, United Arab Emirates,Estonia and Rumania, hit certain of my videos. ( In Video Manager you can see each country, each head count) There is no Scientology in these countries and no one from them ever visited previous, *Suddenly* over night these countries were flooding my site with 24 second "views."

My Lawyer Ray Jeffrey immediately wrote to General Counsel of Google and any danger was immediately thwarted. Nice communication cycle.
The Church will commit any criminal act on a target. It's *ECCLESIASTICAL !​

Click to expand...

" When the Criminal Cult wants to hit a target it uses laws and policy in REVERSE. "

" When the Criminal Cult wants to hit a target it uses laws and policy in REVERSE. "

Also tech in reverse.

Thus parishioners are fucked over and depart.

Click to expand...

On the topic of Moral/Ethical codes, Hubbard stated, in the 1950s or 1960s, that Scientology had several moral codes, such as the Auditors Code and The Code of a Scientologist. It also had an Ethical Code in The Code of Honor, plus its various Ethics rules.

Hubbard described The Way to Happiness as a "non religious moral code."

Not likely that it would have been described as such if it was intended to be used to fulfill a requirement of the IRS, which, in any event, is not supposed to have the power to determine what is or is not a religion.

IMO, it's more likely that, with the terrible PR resulting from the court ordered release, in late 1979, of thousands of pages of damning Hubbard and Hubbard related materials, that The Way to Happiness - "the non religious moral code" - came into being as PR damage control.

As Marty Rathbun has noted recently, and as others have noted for years or decades previously, the tech and policy of Scientology have the "reverse" aspect already built in: interwoven with the seemingly benign parts.

One can say that some seemingly benign part of Scientology, such as the comm cycle, can be "reversed," such as when doing the "dirty needle drill"; however, there are also parts of Scientology that, just as they are, and not "reversed," are detrimental to the individual.

BTW, readers, this thread was started in June 2014 and since then, Karen and Jeffrey's YouTube channel Surviving Scientology is back up. I believe all videos have, as well, been returned to it. Correct me if I am wrong, Karen. And do fill us in on what happened to get the channel back up

BTW, readers, this thread was started in June 2014 and since then, Karen and Jeffrey's YouTube channel Surviving Scientology is back up. I believe all videos have, as well, been returned to it. Correct me if I am wrong, Karen. And do fill us in on what happened to get the channel back up

Click to expand...

AnonyMary ?

?

My Surviving Scientology Channel never went down to "go back up". There has never been one HOUR of disruption. I just don't know what you are thinking or assuming. All that happened was I got targetted by 23 second views from outlandish countries. Some 100,000 fake views. My lawyer overnight FEDEXed General Counsel Google (as Google owns owns YouTube) so that Google would understood "Fair Game" and intentions of "Fair Game."

?????

Don't know what you mean by "Channel went back up" when it never went down.​